hey im trying to get my monitor to displayin 1024x76. but its stuck in 800x600 mode. whats the deal?

# /etc/X11/xorg.conf (xorg X Window System server configuration file)
#
# This file was generated by dexconf, the Debian X Configuration tool, using
# values from the debconf database.
#
# Edit this file with caution, and see the /etc/X11/xorg.conf manual page.
# (Type "man /etc/X11/xorg.conf" at the shell prompt.)
#
# This file is automatically updated on xserver-xorg package upgrades *only*
# if it has not been modified since the last upgrade of the xserver-xorg
# package.
#
# If you have edited this file but would like it to be automatically updated
# again, run the following command:
# sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

Wow! when I tired ubuntu a couple of weeks ago my res was stuck there and noone could fix it to 1280x 800.....others too had issues. when i tried Bea it worked without one issue or tweak instantly from the start. Hmmm weird.

im using bea and i tried bianca and got the same issue.
i hate it how there are inconsisteny's between distro's.
like i have to use fedora 6 for school and i type ll and it brings a long list format but when i do it in ubuntu/mint it doesnt work. on another note i always believed that linux was totaly standards compliant but its not.
Linux doesnt fully follow the POSTIX standard.

Portable Operating System Interface for Unix
and wikipedia says that its not fully compliant bucko! =)-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIXand i know its an alias bud, but its stupid how fedora does this and ubuntu does not. its annoying and inconsistent. i thought that all distributions would have the same commands if they used the same shell. it would only make to much sense though. i believe in unity like there should be only one type of package management system and one type of window management system that is highly customizable. it doesn't make sense to have multiple types. it only creates more work for developers than if they were to work on one project together. so if there is a standard like POSIX and maybe a shell standard then distro's should follow just like how opera is fully w3c compliant and suprise suprise Firefox is not. if you don't believe me then go here
http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#topi was surprised to find this out. I believed that Firefox was totaly compliant.

jett wrote: but its stupid how fedora does this and ubuntu does not. its annoying and inconsistent.

To that part I agree. But you see the problem? You'd have to get the Fedora, the Ubuntu and the SUSE people on the same table, have them talk to each other, have them to agree to some sorts of common standard ... And this was tried in the past, e.g. with the "LSB" and so forth. And this stuff still hasn't gone anywhere yet.

So it's simpler if you setup your .bashrc and .profile in a really good way and then just copy those files whenever you install a new Linux distro and/or get an user account somewhere somehow.

jett wrote: Portable Operating System Interface for Unix

Exactly. This stuff defines how programs and the operating system talk to each other ... it has next to nothing to do with commands such as "ll" working or not And Linux complies "mostly". What's different is some I/O stuff and some error codes the OS is supposed to throw up when some stuff goes wrong. Torvalds was writing Linux from scratch back in 1991, and he didn't have access to that expensive documentation (back then) so he came up with his own solutions in some cases; And so far nobody has really cared to have Linux POSIX certified in all those years. Not that it really matters, there aren't really many programs where this would have any influence whatsoever. You can compile most UNIX programs on Linux and vice versa, so whatever the POSIX compliance of Linux, it's obviously good enough. But again, this has no meaning what the names of certain user-space commands are supposed to be like or not. Take HP-UX and Solaris as an example ... Both are fully POSIX compliant and yet the differences between the commands of the two are so drastic to the point where one and the same command has a different meaning on both of them

jett wrote: it would only make to much sense though. i believe in unity like there should be only one type of package management system and one type of window management system that is highly customizable.

It's called freedom ... e.g. Freedom of choice

jett wrote: it doesn't make sense to have multiple types. it only creates more work for developers than if they were to work on one project together.

But what if they do not want to work together? Their freedom grants them this possibility too. And we are free to choose whose project / product we will use or not. Nobody is forced to anything.

jett wrote: so if there is a standard like POSIX and maybe a shell standard then distro's should follow

Well, they are following it. But whether or not aliases are defined or not and what aliases are defined or not just isn't part of the standard See above. I just copy over my shell profile to all my accounts on all distros and I don't need to worry about those things any longer.

jett wrote: just like how opera is fully w3c compliant and suprise suprise Firefox is not.

Well .... how often are you forced to render smileys via HTML? Whatever the compliance level of Firefox I think it's good enough for everyday use.

Oh well ... maybe the folks at Mozilla will improve Firefox over the next few releases?

Dunno if this question was answered or not .... "envy" is a tool in the newer versions of Mint which will help you setup your graphics card correctly. You just need to answer "yes" or "no" (y/n) to some questions it will ask you and the rest happens more or less automagically.